|
If the players are trying to draw attention sure. Another way is to have the players make a knowledge local check to saw what impresses the locals so they know how to dress and what to buy before they even show up.
Oh yes, my example wasn't meant to be exhaustive - in every aspect of the game if players can come up with good explanations of how they use their skills to improve their chances of success then I incorporate them (and that is something 4e actually encourages when running skill challenges).
So if the players had stated ahead of time that they wanted to "gear up" for the Princess's Ball to try to impress I would have perhaps allowed Knowledge (Local) or Knowledge (Nobility) to know what was on trend and earn the PC an equipement bonus and / or circumstance bonus - and not just for the suggested Charisma check but for subsequent Diplomacy, Bluff and even Intimidate checks (as the PC knew about the scurrilous rumours going around about that merchant's son :)
On the fly house rules generally equal GM fiat. There's enough horror stories roaming about online to suggest this is generally a bad idea.
I must emphasise again that I in no way believe my example was a houserule, I wasn't altering changing how the given rules work (e.g. I wasn't suggesting using Charisma where Diplomacy would normally be used), I was suggesting a scenario where a GM uses the system's tools (Ability checks) to adjudicate a situation which the rules don't explicitly cover.
Its this sort of ability of a GM to react and adapt to situations the rules don't cover that that helps set table top RPGs apart from computer games.
It's also a jerk move when you call for ability checks just because you know the PC has a low-ish score in that thing.
I agree, but that wasn't what I was suggesting (not sure whether anyone else did); rather I was just highlighting that while skill points can offset a low charisma the majority of the time, the game does allow for straighht ability checks and should a GM call for a Charisma check I would hope those who dumped Charisma wouldn't complain.
Ability checks, incidentally, are poor as far as a mechanical thing.
True, but that is a whole other discussion about a fundamental flaw in the d20 system, but given the system as it is Ability checks are a tool to be used by the players where necessary.
I personally wondered whether it might be better to use the Ability Score (rather than modifier) for checks - this would make the difference in Ability more apparent and also would possibly bring Skill Check DCs more in line with Ability check DCs. Interestingly D&D Next might actually be doing something like this - something to look out for at least.
Yet at the same time, what the hell does Charisma have to do with anyone walking into a room and having people notice you? Charisma doesn't create some sort of magic aura.
Charisma covers appearance and personal magnetism, the latter I interpret as the ability to attract people toward you, and actually something that is sometimes described as being an aura "the figure exuded an aura of menace as he moved silently through the back alley". Its that intangible quality that marks that person out as somethng different (IMHO anyway).
Basically its when in a Bond movie, Bond simply walks through a hotel lobby and all the women turn to gaze admiringly, and the men look on enviously or suspciuously - all without Bond speaking a word.
Your equipment or clothing, or the big scar on your face, and similar things are more likely to get you noticed
Yep and all those things could be taken into account as situational benefits either positively (you are wearing the latest fashions in striking colours) or negatively (you arrive wearing rags and having just crawled out of the sewers!).
As I mention above, my exmaple wasn't meant to try to be exhaustive in listing all the modifiers and supporting skills that could be used to adjust the check (just like if I was making an example of a Strength check I wouldn't liking raise the idea of using Knowledge (Architecture) to allow the PC to know the weak spots on the door to be broken down, or to use Knowledge (Engineering) to know how to use leverage or set up a block and tackle etc to lift a heavy item.
and don't argue it determines how you look because I will counter with hat of disguise changing your looks as desired.
But Charisma does explicitly cover appearance :) Its spelt out in the core rulebook - does that mean there is a contradiction in the RAW? Perhaps. But appearance to me not only covers the static look of a person, but also their mannerisma, the way they move, whether they avoid eye contact or can hold it well etc.
Going back to the James Bond example, apparently one of the reasons Sean Connery got the part was because Fleming thought he moved like a panther on the prowl. So while a Hat of Disguise could perhaps make you look like the young Sean Connery it couldn't make you appear exactly like him as, like the Diguise Self spell, it "spell does not provide the abilities or mannerisms of the chosen form".
It's the mannerisms, the air of confidence and the way a person stands and moves that make Charisma a good choice as a basis for a test to see how much of attention a character may draw when he enters the Princess's Ball.
Charisma influences social stuff, it does not determine it. The game simply doesn't work like that.
And I was not suggesting it would. My example was more a case of having a higher natural Charisma may actually make it easier to engage in the social "stuff", i.e. making Diplomacy checks etc.
Its also interesting that you seem to be characterising Charisma checks as being a mechanic to punish those who dumped Charisma, where in my example its more a case of rewarding those who invested in a high charisma.
In the expanded example I gave in this post, failing to beat DC 10 didn't result in any negatives to any social engagement, rather it just didn't provide any benefits - the player would simply have to announce how his character approaches people and strike up a conversation to use Diplomacy.
The Charisma check wasn't trumping the use of Diplomacy and neither was it even dictating Initial Attitude of NPCs, more it was just determining whether you got people momentarily intrigued / curious by you enough to make it easier to approach them.
If you have a +30 in Swim, your GM shouldn't call for a Strength check to see if you can try to use your Swim skill. Anyone here think that's a particularly good idea?
Funnily enough you have chosen an example where a dumped Strength will actually impose a penalty twice over because Strength determines Carrying Capacity as well as how well you can Swim.
So PC A has Strength 7 (-2) and PC B Strength 16 (+3), PC A has 2 ranks in Swim and its a class skill for him, PC B has no ranks in Swim. Both are carrying 25 lbs of equipment.
Now although both have the same Swim modifier of +3 (despite the fact that PC A has to sink two skill ranks into a class skill and PC B didn't have to) PC B is still the better swimmer because 25 lbs of equipment is a Light Load for him, but its a Medium load for PC A which means his final Swim modifier is actually +0!
So the Swim and Encumbrance rules have actually set a precedent that an Ability can impose a penalty due to a preceding factor (how much you can carry) on a subsequent skill check that is based on that same Ability (Swim).
So is it too much of a stretch to think that Charisma could potentially impose a bonus (or in my example just a slight benefit) due to a preceding factor (how much of an attention grabbing entrance you make) on a subsequent skill check that is based on that same Ability (Diplomacy, Bluff etc)?
Ok, Bard, you need to make a DC 10 Charisma check to see if anyone will even give you the time of day to impress them with your +30 Diplomacy.
Bard: "Awesome!" *rolls and gets a 3+4=7*
GM: "Yeah, sorry, nobody cares because they all decided they hated you too much to even acknowledge your existence the moment you walked into sight."
Bard: Q.Q
The Bard should have Taken 10! But again, you are mischaractising how I suggested using such checks. Failure to meet DC 10 didn't mean all the NPCs took on an Initial Attitude of Unfriendly, rather it simply meant they wouldn't stop their existing conversations to speak to the PC; the PC would need to try to ingratiate himself into the conversation in a polite manner, perhaps taking a little longer than he had hoped or having to put up with having other people listening to the conversation.
Low-Charisma Dude: "Er, well..." *rolls 17-2 = 15*
GM: "Grr, there's a -2 circumstance penalty 'cause you're ugly."
Low-Charisma Dude: "Why? I'm currently in disguise, and using disguise self to look like a young handsome nobleman."
GM: "You meta gaming power gaming bastard, stop dumping Charisma and actually playing the game!!!" *ragequits like a five year old who didn't win cops & robbers*
Again, you seem convinced that the only reason a GM might be calling for such Charisma checks is to screw over those who dumped Charisma - that is simply not the case.
|
|
I agree. I also think charisma should have been tied to will saves. People with strong personalities should be harder to influence, IMHO.
That was one of the best changes D&D 4e made - use the better of two stats to determine Defences:
Str or Con for FortitudeDex or Int for Reflex
Wis or Cha for Will
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree that that was a great change on the whole, really all it did in practice was add Wisdom to the list of stats that characters sometimes consider dumping. (Along with Str, Int and Cha.) Since barring unusual hybrids or people seeking feat requirements there aren't classes that need more than three or so stats (and you really generally only need two particularly high), you can essentially always choose one of Str, Int, Wis or Cha to dump, preserving your initiative and HP at at least baseline levels even if your class has no particular use for Dex or Con.
I've mentioned this in other threads, but in real gameplay it's very difficult to make a charisma dump matter enough that it really makes the player wonder whether it was worth dumping charisma just to get +1 to everything I do in combat and +1 to The Skills The Party Is Actually Relying On Me For. If you don't make them make charisma checks much, then mechanically the dump is free points. You can make players make a bunch of charisma checks (any kind of charisma check, skills, whatever), but if there's no meaningful consequences then it doesn't really matter all that much. And even if you do manage to make them make a charisma check with consequences, there's a one in twenty chance that taking an 8 in Cha instead of a 10 will even affect whether they hit the DC! It's one in ten if they took a 7 instead of a 10. How bad are the consequences of the charisma checks supposed to be that a player will seriously question whether the extra benefits he's getting from the points better spent elsewhere would be worth a whopping +1 or +2 to these dump-punishing charisma checks?
(Seriously though, if anyone has suggestions for discouraging dump stats organically without wandering way off the rules, I'd love to hear them. I don't care if my players give their characters dump stats, but I don't want them to feel like they're playing significantly weaker characters if they don't.)
I think there's a big difference between suggesting an action for someone else's character and telling someone else what their character's personality is based on their stats. In my opinion, your previous statement was for the latter, and that's not appropriate in my opinion.
The GM sets up the world, but he doesn't tell the players what their character's are like. That's for the players to decide, and it can be independent of stats.
As a DM I don't tell them what their PCs are like: I tell them if their characters makes no sense as proposed and ask them for a believable explanation. If they can't give me one they are playing characters that ruin everybody else's fun, and I expect GM to prevent that. Suspension of disbelief in my book is meant to be for dragons and wizards, non for the autistic diplomancer.
Honestly, Dex is kind of a super-stat as is; it would be nice to steal some stuff from it to give to Wisdom. Alice Margatroid uses Wis for initiative, but I personally feel that initiative is so good that, along with Perception, that makes Wisdom almost too good. I prefer just shifting ranged attacks from Dex to Wis -- as weird as that may sound, it makes Wis a lot handier for rangers (synergizing with their casting stat and all).
Personally, I'd have WIS modify initiative and will saves against illusions, CHA for all other will saves.
DEX applies to a lot of things, but remember that combat-wise a huge portion of these boards consider STR rogues superior to DEX rogues and that rangers are by many considered the best TWFs because they don't need to invest in DEX. When you are actively trying to avoid investing in an ability probably it's not that powerful. I consider it a good stat and rarely one to be dumped, but not at the level of CON, WIS and (for meleers) STR.
A "social combat" system can be challenging to write, but could have a really cool impact on scenes, courtly affairs, and so forth. The problem would be writing it in such a way as to support roleplaying rather than giving people a feeling that it was replaced.
Not really, you just ensure that their is a reward mechanism specifically tied to people attempting to play their character. The more awesome they bring the better the reward.
Such a reward can run from a push(small static bonus to a dice roll), bonus die, drama points, resource renewal, bonus exp or any combination of the above(like stunt die in exalted).
Better roleplaying through operant conditioning!!!
Deadlands did something like this without force-feeding it to you, with their edges & hindrances system. You picked a number of hindrances (like flaws) which gave more points to make your character. You were actually free to completely ignore them after that if desired, but roleplaying those drawbacks - especially when it wouldn't benefit you - awarded extra fate chips, which in turn means you could get out of bad situations better, or turn extra chips in for XP points to improve your character.
That being said, I wouldn't want a social system that required PCs to be actors in the least. I'd want it to be, mostly, mechanical, because I have friends who aren't very eloquent themselves who like playing high-Charisma / social stat characters, just like I have friends who aren't physically strong who like playing high-Strength muscle bound barbarians. I don't want to ask my players to bench-press weights along with their Strength-based checks, so I don't want to make my other friends uncomfortable trying to act out something when explaining what they're trying to say (in as few words as possible) and rolling would suffice. Fair is fair after all.
Again, you seem convinced that the only reason a GM might be calling for such Charisma checks is to screw over those who dumped Charisma - that is simply not the case.
Find me an example in the rules where you make a Charisma check that doesn't involve a raw test of wills (charm person, command undead, planar binding, sphere of annihilation, etc) that there's no skill or mechanic that already governs that thing (such as bluff, diplomacy, handle animal, intimidate, perform, etc).
There are exceptionally few ability checks in the game, because ability scores are your most raw of raw statistics. Literally stuff that has no experiences attached to them. The most common ability check is a Strength check to break or unstuck objects. There are exceedingly few to no ability checks that are actually part of the game for certain other statistics, especially mental statistics.
Either give a list of stuff that raw checks are going to be called for and call them for everyone (very often screwing up high Charisma people as well because of the all or nothing nature of ability checks), or be a jerk and begin inventing reasons to call for non-experience based checks for a nonspecific ability score for stuff that either shouldn't require a check or is already governed by a different game mechanic (that is probably already affected by Charisma anyway).
If you don't know what I mean by the nature of raw ability checks, just see a strong character try to open a door. A door with a DC 17 stuck DC to open still requires a guy with an 18 strength to roll a 13+ on a d20. He could sit there and roll for several rounds without hitting it. Meanwhile a guy with a +0 Str could walk up and make it on the first try. Because of this, most ability checks are very low (like DC 5), or are opposed (which means more when one guy has a good mod and the other a bad mod).
|
Here is what I'm working on now. Her name is/was Ariel Aren. Curious to see what you come up with.
Then thread exploded with 200+ posts in the ten hours I was away from computer. Would love to see what Ashiel would do with it.
Here is what I'm working on now. Her name is/was Ariel Aren. Curious to see what you come up with.Then thread exploded with 200+ posts in the ten hours I was away from computer. Would love to see what Ashiel would do with it.
Sure Kerney, I'll see what I can do. I'll be out most of the day helping my father build a garage door and painting it, but I'll try to get your character up in the next couple of days if not late this evening. ^-^
|
|
Deadlands did something like this without force-feeding it to you, with their edges & hindrances system. You picked a number of hindrances (like flaws) which gave more points to make your character. You were actually free to completely ignore them after that if desired, but roleplaying those drawbacks - especially when it wouldn't benefit you - awarded extra fate chips, which in turn means you could get out of bad situations better, or turn extra chips in for XP points to improve your character.
Was that Classic Deadlands or the Savage Worlds Deadlands Reloaded? I am only familiar with the latter and not particularly familiar as all that but I don't recall in SW earning Bennies for playing your Hindrances - did I miss something?
I do like that method though but prefer the new World of Darkness method where you don't even get points at character creation, and only get a reward if they come up in play. Better still I love FATE's Aspects that can be both beneficial and also a hindrance (with the latter earning you Fate Points as a compel).
Find me an example in the rules where you make a Charisma check that doesn't involve a raw test of wills (charm person, command undead, planar binding, sphere of annihilation, etc) that there's no skill or mechanic that already governs that thing (such as bluff, diplomacy, handle animal, intimidate, perform, etc).
Provide you an example to what end? My whole example was about using the tools of the system (Ability checks) to adjudicate situations that the rules don't cover.
The rules show that Charisma checks are sometimes a valid means to resolve an action - you listed a few examples yourself where it is a raw test of strength of personality and where skills aren't appropriate. Those right there set the precedent that such Ability checks may, on those rare occassions, be more appropriate than a skill check.
There are exceptionally few ability checks in the game, because ability scores are your most raw of raw statistics. Literally stuff that has no experiences attached to them.
I agree, Ability checks (including Charisma checks) are likely to only be rarely used as in most situations it will be clear that a certain skill (or save) is appropriate to use.
However there are situations where either it is more appropriate that the raw score is used or experience would be attached to the task but the rules don't have an appropriate skill, feat or save that embodies that experience.
My example of the entrance to the Princess' Ball may actually be more akin to the second reason - experience would be attached but no skill covers that experience. In such a case I guess I could ask for a Charisma + Character level check (with character level as a means to try to embody that experience, like a Concentration check does with caster level in PF), or maybe half character level (we're getting into how 4e handles Ability checks here).
But I am pretty sure an Ability Mod + Character Level check would also be considered a house rule by yourself as the rule book doesn't spell out such a mechanic (PF doesn't even have that as a means to resist Intimidation now, instead using a static 10 + Hit Dice + Wis Modifier as a DC, unlike 3.5 that used d20 + Character Level + Wis Modifier).
This is where I think Pathfinder could really learn something from D&D 4e with its Page 42 guidelines to cover stuff not covered by the rules, and also its Background Bonus (PHB2) where a DM can assign a bonus to a Skill or Ability checks if the PC has a relevant background. However I suspect you would hate such rules as they are guidelines that rely on GM judgement on the fly rather than hard and fast explicit rules.
Either give a list of stuff that raw checks are going to be called for and call them for everyone (very often screwing up high Charisma people as well because of the all or nothing nature of ability checks), or be a jerk and begin inventing reasons to call for non-experience based checks for a nonspecific ability score for stuff that either shouldn't require a check or is already governed by a different game mechanic (that is probably already affected by Charisma anyway).
Ashiel, a word of advice, you are effectively stating that my playstyle requires me to be a "jerk". Your posts are bordering on One True Wayism and stating that my playstyle is BADWRONGFUN. Please don't do that.
In any game I run I will never be able to provide a definitive list of stuff that raw checks are going to be called for because I will only likely call for such checks in those rare situations where something unexpected comes up, or where I suddenly identify a situation that the rules designers themselves didn't think to cover. I cannot predict the unexpected!
But neither do I "invent reasons" - situations present themselves that I or my players identify as possibly having an unknown or random factor involved and as such I may call for a check to help me adjudicate that situation rather than rely on GM hand waving.
You suggest that I would be inventing checks for stuff that "shouldn't require a check or is already governed by a different game mechanic" - I am interested how you would handle the scenario I provided.
E.g. the PCs are about to enter the Princess's Ball and players begin speaking
Adam: "So, do we draw a bit of attention when we enter?"
Sarah "Hell, my character should have every unmarried man (and married man for that matter) drooling in my direction"
Brian "Forget that, I am just interested in knowing whether the Princess herself notices our entrance, cause if not it might be difficult getting past her bodyguards to speak to her"
Adam, Sarah and Brian all turn to you the GM
All: "So what sort of an entrance do we make?"
That is the scenario. You as GM haven't necessarily thought about how the NPCs will react to just the PCs' entrance but your players seem keen to know what level of attention their characters draw and one player expects quite a great deal of attention - at least from the men!
So how would you adjudicate such a scenario? From what you say either a roll should not be needed or a skill should be used, so I am intrigued which you would do.
Something that seems to be getting lost here is this: Attributes give a global positive or negative modifier to A.) generic checks involving X attribute or B.) to a select range of skills that are attached to X attribute.
Think about it for a second: global
17pts invested into CHA yields an 18 ability score, for +4 global modifier. That's an automatic +4 Diplomacy AND Bluff. What if they're both Class skills? Okay, go ahead and burn 2 skill points, now you've double-downed! +8 Diplomacy AND Bluff at 1st level? And you're still rocking a generic +4 CHA check?
I take it back - CHA is doing just fine. Spend the points on a stat, any stat, and the game will reward you.
My point here is, don't begrudge the 8 CHA guy for focusing on one charismatic skill like Diplomacy. The guy is trying to mitigate a poor attribute via skill points. And again, the game accounts for it.
This is a beautiful example of how to craft characters who fit an idealistic concept, level by level, starting with point buy. I think that I will show my players this thread and see if I can get a campaign started where every character is well adjusted and interesting.
My group uses 4d6 drop lowest, reroll 1s and roll seven times, dropping the lowest score. I've found myself waiting for good rolls before bothering with a concept character. It was very helpful to see your process Ashiel.
One reason why fighter might want to avoid negative charisma: Intimidate.
While the feat Intimidating Prowess allows you to add strength as well... you'd still get full malus from a low charisma. Of course a -1 to cha won't hurt that much. But the same could be said about a -1 to will saves because of 8 wisdom, right?
Then it only becomes a discussion of what you'd need more: intimidate to make sure the BBEG mage doesn't get to cast at all or a good will save so the fighter doesn't turn around to start killing his own party?
One reason why fighter might want to avoid negative charisma: Intimidate.
1. there are two kinds of intimidation: action and insinuation. I firmly believe that Intimidate should use STR or CHA, whichever is higher.
2. In the case of the Fighter and 8 CHA, is -1 really that much of a tax? It's a class skill after all, so 1 rank nets +3 Intimidate (1-1+3).
|
My point here is, don't begrudge the 8 CHA guy for focusing on one charismatic skill like Diplomacy. The guy is trying to mitigate a poor attribute via skill points. And again, the game accounts for it.
Not to mention, my Cha 8, quiet, modest, hardworking, honest, friendly, diplomatic character may not WANT to be good at lying to people. Or frightening them.
|
|
E.g. the PCs are about to enter the Princess's Ball and players begin speaking
Adam: "So, do we draw a bit of attention when we enter?"
Sarah "Hell, my character should have every unmarried man (and married man for that matter) drooling in my direction"
Brian "Forget that, I am just interested in knowing whether the Princess herself notices our entrance, cause if not it might be difficult getting past her bodyguards to speak to her"
Adam, Sarah and Brian all turn to you the GM
All: "So what sort of an entrance do we make?"
GM: "What sort of entrance do you want to make?"
Because, if the aim is merely to draw attention to oneselves, the stereotypical Cha 3 drunken faux-Scottish dwarf can do that, by starting a punch-up in the doorway.
"Yew lookin'up mah kilt? Take that!"
Assuming you mean 'ensuring the host is aware you've arrived', then I would assume that the event has some form of doorman, whose job it is to bellow your names and titles out, when you pass him your invitation.
Letting people know you have arrived is not difficult, if that is what you desire.
Whether they care, now there is the question.
I would say, that for a room full of socially-conscious nobility, what matters is less whether you are fugly, or have the personality of a wet beermat, but whether you are politically useful to them.
In which case, you're talking about some measure of 'power' or 'reputation', which would surely have grown with experience, and so, is a prime candidate for the (Cha mod+level/2) mentioned by many above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deadlands did something like this without force-feeding it to you, with their edges & hindrances system. You picked a number of hindrances (like flaws) which gave more points to make your character. You were actually free to completely ignore them after that if desired, but roleplaying those drawbacks - especially when it wouldn't benefit you - awarded extra fate chips, which in turn means you could get out of bad situations better, or turn extra chips in for XP points to improve your character.Was that Classic Deadlands or the Savage Worlds Deadlands Reloaded? I am only familiar with the latter and not particularly familiar as all that but I don't recall in SW earning Bennies for playing your Hindrances - did I miss something?
I dunno. The only Deadlands I've played was the original and the slightly modified 2nd printing, I believe.
Either give a list of stuff that raw checks are going to be called for and call them for everyone (very often screwing up high Charisma people as well because of the all or nothing nature of ability checks), or be a jerk and begin inventing reasons to call for non-experience based checks for a nonspecific ability score for stuff that either shouldn't require a check or is already governed by a different game mechanic (that is probably already affected by Charisma anyway).Ashiel, a word of advice, you are effectively stating that my playstyle requires me to be a "jerk". Your posts are bordering on One True Wayism and stating that my playstyle is BADWRONGFUN. Please don't do that.
Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. Either be consistent or stop being a jerk. If you note what I said, I said "or a jerk and begin inventing reasons to call for non-experience based checks for a nonspecific ability score for stuff that either shouldn't require a check or is already governed by a different game mechanic (that is probably already affected by Charisma anyway".
Now let's break this down a bit. Are you making up Charisma checks for stuff just to make people roll Charisma checks (especially if it is just to punish those who have a lower score than others)? If no, then you're not a jerk. Simply, huh? There's a difference between calling out activities that are jerkish and professing "the one true way".
The only way you should take my post as offensive is if you actually are a vindictive GM who is going to actively make up excuses to keep calling for ability checks throughout the game without letting your PCs know that you are going to call for random checks for random things, with the intent of punishing PCs for having weak stats. I'm assuming you're not a jerk and don't do that.
But I am pretty sure an Ability Mod + Character Level check would also be considered a house rule by yourself as the rule book doesn't spell out such a mechanic (PF doesn't even have that as a means to resist Intimidation now, instead using a static 10 + Hit Dice + Wis Modifier as a DC, unlike 3.5 that used d20 + Character Level + Wis Modifier).
Well yeah it's a house rule. Anyone on these boards or anyone with eyes in their head could tell you it was a house rule, because it's not present anywhere in the rules or game. It's not a bad mechanic for some things, and yet also doesn't make much sense as an Ability check. An ability check is a strait test of X. By their nature, ability checks do not involve experience but the raw ability in something. However, the vast majority of Charisma-related things (social based things) by their nature draw on a character's experience and circumstances; while things like opposed will checks (Charisma vs Charisma on charm person for example) do not.
It would probably make for a cool mechanic for handling stuff as an untrained skill. For example, d20 + 1/2 HD + key ability for untrained skills would represent general knowledge picked up while gaining levels, while class skills might be d20 + HD + key ability. That would be a very Saga/4E style thing. House rule? Absolutely. A bad one? Probably not. :)
========================================================================
This is a beautiful example of how to craft characters who fit an idealistic concept, level by level, starting with point buy. I think that I will show my players this thread and see if I can get a campaign started where every character is well adjusted and interesting.
My group uses 4d6 drop lowest, reroll 1s and roll seven times, dropping the lowest score. I've found myself waiting for good rolls before bothering with a concept character. It was very helpful to see your process Ashiel.
I'm glad you enjoyed it Archomedes. I hope it helps you and your group. ^-^
|
Seems like this argument was held two years ago, before the thread was necroed back to life... held countless other places over the intervening months-- held on another thread just last week; and now held on this thread this week. Not gonna repeat myself here-- my opinion has been stated clearly enough elsewhere.
However, I do appreciate Kirth's very clear explanation (from around two years ago) of the basic problems with Charisma, compared with other stats. It's still an almost totally pointless stat, so long as the only thing it does is apply a skill modifier that you can entirely make up with skill points-- seems like a good solution would be to house-rule charisma into complete non-existence and sort what very very few effects might remain (prime casting stat for the previously charisma-based casters as the main issue-- possibly reassigning the skills to other stats rather than leaving them with no modifying stat-- probably give the majority of them to Intelligence, since otherwise it's a little light on game effects compared to the other four).
Whether they care, now there is the question.
I would say, that for a room full of socially-conscious nobility, what matters is less whether you are fugly, or have the personality of a wet beermat, but whether you are politically useful to them.
In which case, you're talking about some measure of 'power' or 'reputation', which would surely have grown with experience, and so, is a prime candidate for the (Cha mod+level/2) mentioned by many above.
I like that formula quite a bit, Snorter. You could probably look at the Leader Modifier chart in the CRB (in the Feat section, Leaderhip). It's got some good stuff that could be used to modify this roll as well.
|
|
All: "So what sort of an entrance do we make?"GM: "What sort of entrance do you want to make?"
A very good way to handle it if the players did ask that, but that was my mistake of bad phrasing, I should have perhaps phrased it as:
All: "So what sort of impact does our entrance make?"Whether they care, now there is the question.
Yep, that was more the question I was going for.
I would say, that for a room full of socially-conscious nobility, what matters is less whether you are fugly, or have the personality of a wet beermat, but whether you are politically useful to them.
Yep, but I would also argue whether you might look like an interesting person to chat with for a time, whether you look like you might be a useful "instrument" to use against your allies, and also whether you are suspicious of who these PCs are "Hmm, they look capable people, I wonder why they are here - are they working for someone?"
In which case, you're talking about some measure of 'power' or 'reputation', which would surely have grown with experience, and so, is a prime candidate for the (Cha mod+level/2) mentioned by many above.
Yes, unfortunately AFAIK PF doesn't have a Reputation mechanic (3.5 had Unearthed Arcana's Reputation mechanic that used class levels as a basis for determining Reputation and Reputation was rolled to determine if people recognised you and the score influenced subsequent social skill rolls)
Without such a mechanic it would come down to either:
a) the GM taking into account all factors and deciding upon an appropriate result
or
b) the taking into account all factors and asking for a check of somekind with bonuses or penalties for those factors. The type of check is up to the GM because the rules don't cover such a mechanic. The example of Cha + Half Level is actually a pretty good choice IMHO.
For me, b) gives the players more a feeling of input (its amazing how rolling dice can give the feeling of control to a player) and also may provide a result that is surprising to me as GM that can take the adventure in a slightly different path than was expected (which I feel is always cool!)
I don't feel b) is a house rule or being unfair to players, just the GM doing what an RPG expects of him - adapting to a situation not covered by the rules by utilising the basic tools that the system provides.
|
|
I dunno. The only Deadlands I've played was the original and the slightly modified 2nd printing, I believe.
Probably classic then, I don't think Savage Worlds rewards Hinderances coming up in play with Bennies (but I will double check).
Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. Either be consistent or stop being a jerk. If you note what I said, I said "or a jerk and begin inventing reasons to call for non-experience based checks for a nonspecific ability score for stuff that either shouldn't require a check or is already governed by a different game mechanic (that is probably already affected by Charisma anyway".
Okay, I think the fact that I took your post as bordering on One True Wayism is because you put forth you statement as an either / or when it wasn't that at all - i.e. there are other options.
When you said "Either give a list of stuff that raw checks are going to be called for [...] or be a jerk" because I know that my style is not to try to predict every unexpected situation that could occur and try to upfront write up a list of how I am going to handle each one, I read your statement as that you felt I must therefore be a jerk.
I then went on to therefore assume that if I do not do the former you must feel that I am "inventing reasons to call for non-experience based checks for a nonspecific ability score for stuff that either shouldn't require a check or is already governed by a different game mechanic" - something I did go on to explain I wasn't doing.
The only way you should take my post as offensive is if you actually are a vindictive GM who is going to actively make up excuses to keep calling for ability checks throughout the game without letting your PCs know that you are going to call for random checks for random things, with the intent of punishing PCs for having weak stats. I'm assuming you're not a jerk and don't do that.
I am glad we have established that I am not a jerk! :)
Re being a vindictive GM, I am definately not, however I was beginning to wonder whether you and some of the other posters have perhaps experienced such vindicative GMs as there appears to be some need to have the GM not adjudicate things on the fly and list out all possible rules ahead of time so the players cannot be surprised (and perhaps can argue with the GM that he is being unfair).
I expect a degree of trust between players and GM, indeed that is essential in games like FATE where each compel or invocation of an aspect for effect is an on the fly adjudication with some dialogue between GM and player as to what is appropriate.
All my post here was trying to point out, is that if a player takes the tack of using skill points to offset a low charisma, they should be aware of the possibility that the GM may call for a straight Charisma check and that if the GM does, the player shouldn't complain that using their low Charisma doesn't fit how they envision and roleplay their character just because they felt skill points were a complete substitute for Charisma; because they are not.
Yet it seems more than one person took my post to mean I was a GM who would only call for such rolls to punish players who dump Charisma. Personally I am okay with players dumping Charisma (or any other stat) as long as they are aware of the full consequences of doing so.
For example if a player dumped Strength because they had a high Dex and weapon finesse and some means to increase damage as well as enough skill points to boost Str based skills, I would likely point out the fact that Carrying Capacity is Str dependent and that they may find out they will incur penalties for carrying too much gear.
So similarly, if a player dumped Charisma because they felt they could offset the skill penalty by having more skill ranks, I would point out that some spells rely on pure Charisma to resist (e.g. Charm Person) and also that I may on occassion call for a straight CHarisma check if I felt the situation required it.
That is the only message I am trying to get out there - be careful on relying on other mechanics to offset a dumped stat as there are some aspects that cannot be offset.
Yes, unfortunately AFAIK PF doesn't have a Reputation mechanic
Look at the Leadership feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno. The only Deadlands I've played was the original and the slightly modified 2nd printing, I believe.Probably classic then, I don't think Savage Worlds rewards Hinderances coming up in play with Bennies (but I will double check).
What's a Benny? :P
In the Deadlands I played, we had Fate Chips. :3
Okay, I think the fact that I took your post as bordering on One True Wayism is because you put forth you statement as an either / or when it wasn't that at all - i.e. there are other options.When you said "Either give a list of stuff that raw checks are going to be called for [...] or be a jerk" because I know that my style is not to try to predict every unexpected situation that could occur and try to upfront write up a list of how I am going to handle each one, I read your statement as that you felt I must therefore be a jerk.
My bad dude, I probably could have been clearer. ^-^"
Re being a vindictive GM, I am definately not, however I was beginning to wonder whether you and some of the other posters have perhaps experienced such vindicative GMs as there appears to be some need to have the GM not adjudicate things on the fly and list out all possible rules ahead of time so the players cannot be surprised (and perhaps can argue with the GM that he is being unfair).
I've experienced my share of vindictive or just plain bad GMs, but just look on the boards here if you want to see how common they are. I mean, you got GMs on the left who want to punish PC #x for having stats they don't find aesthetically pleasing, and GMs on the right who try to nerf everything into uselessness or think everything is overpowered, and then you got the ones in the middle who intentionally try to railroad PCs or antagonize them with the loss of abilities, clerics having their gods turn on them or give them spells they don't want because the GM thinks it's funny, and so forth.
Heck, once I was in a game where I was playing a cleric with a heavy shield, and I was trying to protect the squishier members from our enemies. I was fighting defensively and moving between the allies and enemies, and I was roleplaying how she kept her eyes on how they moved, and slapped her shield mockingly a few times and using taunting language like "You think you're big enough to take me?" and so forth (the taunting was purely for show, no mechanical benefit of course). So one of the enemies misses me in combat, and the GM begins rolling damage against my shield, because he said "you're blocking with your shield, so your shield takes damage".
Same GM also had no clue as to the balance of the game. He introduced some god-awful called shot rules which just applied various penalties to your attack roll. I noted "You can cast true strike and slam somebody in the eye/skull every single time", to which his response was "Well spellcasters need love too. Warriors shouldn't have all the fun".
Everyone in the group quit after game #1, because we were all bored to tears with him telling us how useless and mangled all the NPC equipment was after we got done. In great detail did he tell us that the spears and such used by the enemies were damaged during the fight, and now have -1 or -2 damage penalties, or how upon being killed their armor was effectively turned into scrap metal, or torn beyond use, etc.
That's not even counting that other GM from the "worst thing a GM can do" thread; which I won't get into here (since I think it almost got that thread closed).
Another GM I played under was running a game in a snowy mountainous region and wanted us to make PCs who fit the theme; and so I made a cool mountain man ranger, covered in furs, winter clothing, who wielded a big axe, who was a great hunter/tracker sort, who was more at home in the wild. He said it was perfect. Later we were playing in the game, and he kept trying to stop me from using Survival to survive. My character, who was a rugged trapper decided he would just stay outside and dig a snow-hovel in the many feet of snow. The GM wouldn't let him take 10 on his survival check "because it's really cold outside"; so I rolled it and banked the check against the DC anyway; and then he tried to make up some other excuse as to why the Ranger expert tracker, hunter, survivor of the cold wilderness, decked out in furs, cold weather outfit, and winter blankets, couldn't sleep outdoors.
In yet another game, a GM randomly added a will-save to negate every psionic power of my psion - after saying it was fine that I play a psion - because he decided psionic powers weren't "real", and gave core-casters "recharge magic" from Unearthed Arcana. Supposedly both decisions were made for balance, because he didn't like 3.5 psionics and said they must be overpowered so everything gets a save to completely ignore them; while spellcasters suddenly don't have to conserve their spells anymore because at worst they get their highest level spell back in 1d6 rounds.
Yeah, 1st level wizard who has colorspray prepped and ready every 1d6 rounds. 15th level wizard who can cycle between spell levels, so he can drop a 7th level spell on round 1, 6th on round 2, 5th/4th on round 3, then more than likely drop another 7th level spell 'cause the first recharge is done; etc, etc, etc. Meanwhile, my psion couldn't so much as entangle a single target with entangling ectoplasm which is a ranged touch vs entangle for a couple of rounds, without them getting a Will save to just completely negate it.
So yeah, I have very little faith in a lot of GMs. I've seen more bad GMs than good GMs. Both online and offline. In fact, many of the posters around here make me cringe, because they actually paint themselves as horrible, vindictive, spiteful monsters, who want the PCs to play exactly what they want, how they want it, or when they want it, or by Gygax they are going to try and make his life hell.
EDIT: Bob_Loblaw lost a lot of points for saying what amounted to "either you play like me, or you're a dirty powergamer and not a roleplayer". I like Bob, but that made me cringe. It shows how infectious and deeply rooted this disease is.
|
|
Look at the Leadership feat.
Yes, unfortunately AFAIK PF doesn't have a Reputation mechanic
Hmm, it uses a general idea of reputation to give a bonus or penalty to the Leadership score, e.g. if your reputation is one of "Fairness and generosity" you get a +1 to Leadership.
Having said that, the base Leadership score (not quite the same as reputation) is based on Level + Cha Mod which is interesting given what we were talking about :)
Look at the Leadership feat.
Yes, unfortunately AFAIK PF doesn't have a Reputation mechanicHmm, it uses a general idea of reputation to give a bonus or penalty to the Leadership score, e.g. if your reputation is one of "Fairness and generosity" you get a +1 to Leadership.
Having said that, the base Leadership score (not quite the same as reputation) is based on Level + Cha Mod which is interesting given what we were talking about :)
Yes, it is. It means that a seasoned adventurer, despite an initially low CHA score, can rise above it through deeds of renown and generosity.
|
|
What's a Benny? :P
In the Deadlands I played, we had Fate Chips. :3
Yeah, I had never heard the term Bennie either until Savage Worlds, most games called them Fate Points (WFRP, Fate, Deadlands Classic apparently), Action points (D&D3.5), Hero Points (PF, James Bond), Drama Points (Unisystem) or something else
My bad dude, I probably could have been clearer.
No problem, its cleared up now - I know some of my forum posts could have done with a better turn of phrase.
I've experienced my share of vindictive or just plain bad GMs
Judging from those stories you certainly have and I guess I can see why you may feel some suggestions are therefore purely motivated by a need to punish players.
Luckily I have seemed to have dodged most of those GMs (I have had a couple at conventions and luckily can avoid signing up for their games now).
Nowadays I try to ensure I play with people with similar playstyles to avoid any conflict.
I dunno. The only Deadlands I've played was the original and the slightly modified 2nd printing, I believe.Probably classic then, I don't think Savage Worlds rewards Hinderances coming up in play with Bennies (but I will double check).What's a Benny? :P
In the Deadlands I played, we had Fate Chips. :3
A reward token. So things like WFRP fate points, style points in house of the blooded, the various chips in deadland, and that sort of thing.
EDIT: Bob_Loblaw lost a lot of points for saying what amounted to "either you play like me, or you're a dirty powergamer and not a roleplayer". I like Bob, but that made me cringe. It shows how infectious and deeply rooted this disease is.
I think you are talking about something in another thread, and that is not what I said. I am willing to discuss it further in the other thread.
|
|
Whether they care, now there is the question.
I would say, that for a room full of socially-conscious nobility, what matters is less whether you are fugly, or have the personality of a wet beermat, but whether you are politically useful to them.
In which case, you're talking about some measure of 'power' or 'reputation', which would surely have grown with experience, and so, is a prime candidate for the (Cha mod+level/2) mentioned by many above.
I like that formula quite a bit, Snorter. You could probably look at the Leader Modifier chart in the CRB (in the Feat section, Leaderhip). It's got some good stuff that could be used to modify this roll as well.
Indeed. Those modifiers aren't the only ones a GM could use, but they are certainly a good start.
I like that it rewards good treatment of NPCs, generosity, willingness to risk personal harm to protect your henchmen, raising them when that fails, being known for good plans, etc.
These are things that have to be played out in-game, they can't be assumed in some pre-game build, they're independent of stats, feats, skills, they can't be replicated via some McGuffin.
dot
Actually, you could just calculate a leadership score for everyone, whether they took the feat or not. That might serve very well as a reputation check.
There's always the floating +2/-2 DM modifier, based on how well the PCs fit into their circumstances.
In the d20 game Spycraft, you actually used Charisma to borrow gear from the Quartermaster section. If you dumped Charisma, you were stuck shooting people, while the persuasive agent got to zoom around in a jet pack with x-ray sunglasses.
I was delighted when I saw this thread and would like to see if I could compare ths build of mine to yours.
The concept is a new initiate amongst the Aldori (nation of Brevoy swordsmasters) takes to journeying the lands upon the duel-defeat and exile of his mentor from said academy by a corrupt noble on visit. Ralnor, as the character is named, now travels to become the best swordsman and duelist in all of the planes.
Init +2, Senses Perception +1
AC 18, touch 12, flat-footed 16 (+6 armor, +2 dex)
Hp: 12 (1d10+2)
Saves Fort +4, Ref +2, Will +1
Speed 20ft
Melee Aldori Dueling Sword +5 (1d8+2, 19-20/x2) or Spiked Gauntlet +3 (1d4+2)
Ranged Sling +3 (1d4)
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 7
BAB +1, CMB +3, CMD 15
Traits - Swordscion; Start with Aldori Dueling Sword and gain +1 to attack and CMB when using said weapon, Threatening Defender; Reduces the penalty of Combat Expertise by 1.
Feats - Combat Expertise, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Aldori Dueling Sword), Weapon Focus (Aldori Dueling Sword)
Skills (total 6pts) - Acrobatics +3, Climb +6, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +6, Ride +6, Survival +5, Swim +6; Modifiers -4 check penalty
Relevant Gear - Aldori Dueling Sword, Chainmail, Sling, Spiked Gauntlet
Overview: Ralnor at his first level. He does decent damage in close combat and can hit quite reliably with his preferred weapon, the Aldori Dueling Sword. He has Decent saves, a slightly stunted comat routine, gets solid AC on budget and benefits from a high strength score. He draws extra benefits from his traits and will be using Combat Expertise every round. Since he is currently too low a level to benefit properly from his chosen Archetype he will be wearing Medium Armour and wielding his sword in two hands, he is just a masterless, travelling initiate at this point, barely able to wield his specialised sword in the manner it should be.
2nd Level Human Fighter, Aldori Swordlord archetype (15 pb)
Init +2, Senses Perception +1
AC 18, touch 12, flat-footed 16 (+6 armor, +2 dex)
Hp: 19 (2d10+4)
Saves Fort +4, Ref +2, Will +1; Bravery +1
Speed 20ft
Melee Aldori Dueling Sword +6 (1d8+3, 19-20/x2) or Spiked Gauntlet +4 (1d4+2)
Ranged Sling +4 (1d4+2)
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 7
BAB +2, CMB +4, CMD 15
Traits - Swordscion; Start with Aldori Dueling Sword and gain +1 to attack and CMB when using said weapon, Threatening Defender; Reduces the penalty of Combat Expertise by 1.
Feats - Combat Expertise, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Aldori Dueling Sword), Weapon Focus (Aldori Dueling Sword), Improved Disarm
Skills (total 12pts) - Acrobatics +3, Climb +6, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +6, Ride +6, Survival +5, Swim +6, Diplomacy +0, Bluff +0, Sense Motive +2; Modifiers -3 check penalty
Relevant Gear - Aldori Dueling Sword, Breastplate, Sling, Spiked Gauntlet
Overview: Mirroring Siegfried's social advancement, Ralnor has upgraded to a breastplate (cheaper than Masterwork Chainmail) and managed to learn a quick and reliable disarming manoeuvre, slolwy approaching the style of the Swordlords.
3rd Level Human Fighter, Aldori Swordlord archetype (15 pb)
Init +2, Senses Perception +1
AC 17, touch 13, flat-footed 14 (+4 armor, +2 dex, +1 dodge)
Hp: 27 (3d10+6)
Saves Fort +5, Ref +3, Will +2; Bravery +1
Speed 30ft
Melee Mwk Aldori Dueling Sword +8 (1d8+2, 19-20/x2) or Spiked Gauntlet +5 (1d4+2)
Ranged Sling +5 (1d4+2)
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 7
BAB +3, CMB +5, CMD 15
Traits - Swordscion; Start with Aldori Dueling Sword and gain +1 to attack and CMB when using said weapon, Threatening Defender; Reduces the penalty of Combat Expertise by 1.
Feats - Combat Expertise, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Aldori Dueling Sword), Weapon Focus (Aldori Dueling Sword), Improved Disarm, Dodge
Skills (total 18pts) - Acrobatics +4, Climb +6, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +6, Ride +6, Survival +6, Swim +6, Diplomacy +1, Bluff +1, Sense Motive +3, Linguistics +3; Modifiers -1 check penalty
Relevant Gear - Masterwork Aldori Dueling Sword, Masterwork Chain shirt, Sling, Spiked Gauntlet
Overview: This is where Ralnor begins to really diverge from Siegfried's path of fighting. Getting the same potions and "downgrading" into a masterwork Chain shirt nets a -1 AC loss but with a constant Combat Expertise up Ralnor compensates for it. Having learned a more advanced manoeuvre Ralnor gains +1 AC against melee attacks as long as he has performed a Full-Round Attack.
4th Level Human Fighter, Aldori Swordlord archetype (15 pb)
Init +3, Senses Perception +1
AC 19, touch 13, flat-footed 14 (+4 armor, +2 dex, +1 dodge)
Hp: 19 (4d10+8)
Saves Fort +6, Ref +3, Will +2; Bravery +1
Speed 20ft
Melee Mwk Aldori Dueling Sword +8 (1d8+2, 19-20/x2) or Spiked Gauntlet +5 (1d4+2)
Ranged Mwk Composite Bow (+2) +9 (1d8+2)
Str 14, Dex 16 (15), Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 7
BAB +4, CMB +6 CMD 16
Traits - Swordscion; Start with Aldori Dueling Sword and gain +1 to attack and CMB when using said weapon, Threatening Defender; Reduces the penalty of Combat Expertise by 1.
Feats - Combat Expertise, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Aldori Dueling Sword), Weapon Focus (Aldori Dueling Sword), Improved Disarm, Dodge, Weapon Finesse, Quickdraw
Skills (total 18pts) - Acrobatics +5, Climb +6, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +6, Ride +6, Survival +6, Swim +6, Diplomacy +1, Bluff +1, Sense Motive +3; Modifiers -1 check penalty
Relevant Gear - Masterwork Aldori Dueling Sword, Masterwork Chain shirt, Sling, Spiked Gauntlet, Ring of Dexterity +1
Overview: Grabbing a Masterwork Composite Bow and a +1 Dexterity item were the largest changes at this point, Combat Expertise increases from -0 hit/+1 AC dodge to -1 hit/+2 AC dodge.